People are saying Subway’s Tuna is not tuna or fish but they aren’t saying what it is other than “various concoctions”.
Now, I used to work at Subway in my younger years, and I mixed their tuna with mayo, and while the stuff was a little dry, I never doubted that it was tuna. I’ve eaten it happily since then.
So what is it supposed to be? Floor sweepings? Laundry lint? Shredded tires?
Any ideas?
No idea, but that reminds me of leaf tea partisans who claim that teabags are made from floor sweepings, which, if you think about it for a few seconds, is pretty ridiculous.
If I had to guess, some other kind of fish that is cheaper than tuna.
I assumed that the allegations were going to be that it was a different type of fish, but no:
I’ll add my “floor sweepings” comment as well: I was stunned the first time I noticed that the Canadian candy bar Eat-More has “may contain cherries” on the label. What?? They’re not sure if cherries are an ingredient? (The more mundane truth is that the same company makes chocolate-covered cherries and sometimes they mix factory seconds into the Eat-More process.)
I’m hard pressed to think of a cheaper, widely available fish. Even if you replaced it with a “junk” fish like some variety of shark or skate, the cost of acquiring it would still be higher than what (supposedly) goes into canned tuna.
For texture and affordability, chicken is my best guess.
I’m pretty sure Subway’s tuna is tuna. Maybe mixed with some mayonnaise. Tuna is cheap, cheaper in bulk, well liked and ubiquitous. What else could it be? It’s not fresh fish in there. It’s not the major menu item. It’s not good business sense for fast food places to pass-off goods. Subway sued for millions after university tests showed their chicken was only 70% chicken. (The restaurant claims the tests were flawed and it is 98% chicken - note: these numbers are slightly off. The case was thrown out in court but allowed to proceed on appeal. The restaurant claimed loss of business and reputation.)
Do NOT YouTube Jim Gaffigan and Subway tuna water, though.
Fish processing places/wholesalers generate a lot of off-cuts that end up in a big bin - I’m guessing it’s this. So a whole mix of bits of different fish. Although what the lawsuit suggests is that it’s ‘not even fish’ - could it be some plant-based products made to look like tuna?
Right. It would be bonkers for them to try to save a little money on this when they would lose far more in business if it were proved. And it wouldn’t be difficult to prove. (This is not to say that big businesses never do anything stupid, but something like this would be off the charts.)
The article is behind a wall. The whole story smells… well you know what.
Are they saying Subway made tuna salad with something besides tuna? Or are they making a claim about the tuna supplier?
The thing that throws me is the “not fish” part. Even if they were raiding the wholesale cat food bin, the scraps would be fish. If it were chicken, it would have to be processed like hell to pass for tuna, and processing costs money.
Whatever it is - it tastes like tuna. It’s the only sub I’ll eat there.
Their lettuce on the other hand tastes like ass, and yes I have.
If the “protein” is, at least partially, non-tuna, my guesses would be:
This sounds like the rumor that went around when I was a kid in the 70s that McDonalds put earthworm meat in their ground beef to stretch it and cut costs. Which was a silly claim, because commercially-bought worms were, per pound, quite a bit more expensive than ground beef.
This has all the earmarks of yet another Internet fabrication. I’ve eaten their tuna and, trust me, it’s TUNA. It tastes every bit as “Tuna-ish” as the stuff I buy at the market.
Next, they’re going to say you can’t catch a train to go downtown at Subway.
From that link:
“The spokesperson added: ‘Unfortunately, this lawsuit is part of a trend in which the named plaintiffs’ attorneys have been targeting the food industry in an effort to make a name for themselves in that space.”
I think in this case Subway sounds more credible than the plaintiffs. It would be insane for Subway to do this. If perhaps some individual did this at a Subway I’m sure they would deny it, but it still sounds insane,
I am reminded of the Saturday Night Live sketch on “That’s Not Yogurt!” (a spoof on “I Can’t Believe It’s Yogurt!”).
“If it’s not yogurt, what is it?”
“Wouldn’t you like to know?”
